Jump to content
Play Pick'em Daily Read more... ×

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL


  • Content Count

  • Posts on chatbox

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Country


elmatus last won the day on September 22

elmatus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

840 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    New Brunswick
  • Favorite Team

Recent Profile Visitors

1,603 profile views
  1. The team currently has a 7.7% chance to make the playoffs. I'm not interested in grabbing a Crawford or Quick and being saddled with another goalie who can't string together two decent performances, all for the faint hope of bumping that percentage up to an even 10%.
  2. I really like ROR, but I can't imagine they'd move him. Honestly, I think the first thing to happen will be the coaching staff. Let the coaches come in and try to work through some stuff. We'll see some moves at that point I imagine, probably near the deadline.
  3. @RonJeremy's right though. No one's going to want those guys. When you're bad on one of the worse teams in the league, people don't generally come knocking for your services.
  4. I hear what you're saying, but using just cups won as a metric to judge the effectiveness of a single player on a 20+ player roster over several years, changes in the game, changes in the coaching staff, and so many other factors is just bad math. Cup wins require a team effort. They require great coaching. They require more than just one guy with skill. They require a whole slew of variables that simply cannot be attributed to one single player, no matter who that player is. Clarke didn't win those cups. The Flyers of the day won those cups. Gretzky won a ton of cups in Edmonton, not quite so many anywhere else. Was Gretzky the best King ever? Of course he was. Today's game is very different. Giroux is a child of this new era of hockey, and he's clearly the best we've ever had over his tenure in the O&B. The question now is whether he was better than Clarke or E (or Parent, though I would agree that goalies are even more difficult to compare in this). I don't know the answer to that. I don't think it's really possible to have an answer to that. It's too broad of a metric if taken just as "best Flyer". We can compare ppg adjusted to the era, if that's your thing. We can compare percentage of pts scored with G vs without him (we can't really do this for the other two though). We can compare things like faceoffs and points made when behind (again for G anyway). We can talk about physicality, which between G and E is clearly not a contest by any stretch, but physicality isn't nearly as big a factor nowadays as it was in the 90s. Point being, saying 'best Flyer ever' with no measurable metric is really just a popularity contest. That's fine too, but it shouldn't be mistaken for best in terms of actual skill or relative effectiveness. My favourite ever is Lindros by a mile, but I'm not sure he's the best ever from a skill standpoint. He was the best for a short period of time, but he had a different set of skills and better linemates. Giroux is doing more with less imo, so does that make him better? Again, either it's popularity or it's just impossible to measure. And cups won does not apply to an individual player in a sport like hockey.
  5. I think at some point the closer you get to the top the more impossible comparisons like these get. So many factors come into play of course, including the style of the game in different eras, as well as linemates as you mentioned. Still, I've seen way too many people brandishing criticisms against Giroux of late on this forum. I just can't understand it for a minute. Yeah, the team is doing poorly, but that has nothing to do with Giroux imo. He's not even in the top rung of reasons why this team is sucking currently. Need a goal? Throw in Giroux. Need someone who can create space in tight? Throw in Giroux. Need someone who barely ever makes a mistake with the puck? Yep, Giroux. Overtime? Giroux. Oh, is there a super important faceoff coming up? You guessed it -- Giroux to the rescue. Sure, he's not Lindros. He's not going to push around half the league like a giant among dwarves. But he's got so many other skills that frankly are much more important to the game in 2018. If it wasn't for Giroux, there would barely be any hope game in and game out. And while we're at it, the same can be said of last season where he decided to go 100+ pts and put the team on his back. He is a gamechanger. And given how relatively few of those we've had, he's clearly a contender for best Flyer ever. Whether he's no.1 or 2 or 3 or 4, that's just impossible to answer without a more focused metric, but he's clearly in the running no matter the yardstick you choose.
  6. It was a frustrating game for sure. The way the team came out, I think many of us were hopeful they'd pull out a beauty. Then the goals started piling up, and suddenly it was the same ol same ol. It's also really hard to know where the problems were in that game. I mean at some point the problems are just everywhere. We can nitpick as we always do, but I don't see it. They just plain sucked from the net to the front. Period. I was hopeful when Stolie went in that maybe he could show up big and help steady things. He did not. I'm with @brelic personally. Aside from Giroux and our faceoff wins, there aren't many redeeming qualities in this squad at this point. Anyway, bring on the deadline shedding, and let's move on from the Hak experiment while we're at it.
  7. Not that switching to Stolarz mattered any. What a mess.
  8. I’m actually impressed Hak had the sense to pull Neuvy. How many games have they been in this situation and kept the goalie in anyway.
  9. The problem is the math just doesn't pan out anymore with tanking. Take a look at this graph: [Hidden Content] Essentially, even if you end up 31st overall, you only have an 18.5% chance of getting the first overall pick. If you're aiming specifically for 1st, there's really no way of getting even remotely good odds. Now, if you're content with a top 4 pick of whatever you can get, then tanking can make more sense. I should note I think the idea this team will purposely tank is extremely unlikely. Not that you're saying any different, but it's worth noting. There's no way this new GM comes in talking about winning now and proceeds to allow his team to tank on purpose. Not to mention, I would 100% assume many of the players on the team would outright refuse to tank. Now, is it beyond their control? They're certainly playing like . There's plenty of reason to believe they'll end up in the bottom five anyway, regardless of their intentions. But tanking to try to get the 1st overall pick makes very little sense and frankly won't happen with this team imo. Can they get lucky twice?
  10. I also agree no one is likely untouchable, with the only exception of Hart. I think it would take some sort of mammoth trade offer for Fletch to move Hart at this point. Aside from him, if by prospect you mean folks who are not on the current roster, I wouldn't put money on anyone being truly untouchable. I think if the right offer came around, Fletch would consider it for any of those guys. If you're extending your criteria to young players who are on the team, then I'd add Provo, TK, and Patrick to that list of untouchables. Much like Hart, i imagine it would take some sort of amazing offer to move any of those three at this point. Also, as far as Voracek goes, he could absolutely be traded without issue. I'm not a huge fan of his game either, but he puts up plenty of points. Teams would take him for sure; in fact, we would get a pretty healthy return to him imo. @RonJeremy With regards to Voracek, I know he doesn't play the kind of smash people to bits gameplay many of us grew up on, but he's nonetheless an elite level scorer. To think that has no value is just wrong. Teams today will take the skill guy over the tough guy virtually every single time.
  11. Every general manager has his own take “on how it should be run,” the Flyers executive said. “For me, and I think Chuck has done the same, I think it’s how you treat your people, so everybody is included as to what’s going on. The people who work for you have to know you trust them and want their opinions and care about them -- and it will be returned every time. Chuck will have that.” “He’ll do a great job in Philly,” the Flyers executive said. “Everybody’s going to be happy to work for him. Everybody’s going to be happy he’s there. His reputation, which is pretty easy when you talk to scouts and all those who have worked for him, is top-level. Everybody enjoyed working for him. Everybody wanted to work for him. Everybody felt part of the team.” How different is this from the recent Hexy micromanagement stuff? Homer must have ate this stuff up. Also of note: Fletcher’s family has ties to the recently fired Joel Quenneville, who coached Chicago to three Stanley Cups and is a candidate to replace Dave Hakstol if the new GM changes his coach.
  12. You're not wrong. It does appear to be a solid roster to work with. On paper, I think most would say it doesn't seem like a line up that should require very much to be very good. And yet, it really hasn't been good. It was saved last year largely because of one guy, and so far this season the roster is floundering and showing itself largely incapable of stringing together more than one decent period a game at best. And that's despite the same one guy who is still playing very high caliber hockey. I wouldn't have canned Hexy as a first step, but I can definitely understand why the brass ran out of patience. This is the second season in a row I can remember where the Flyers were considered under the radar contenders, primed and waiting for a major step forward. Instead, they're in the basement. It's also not like they're near the bottom three due to bad luck or injuries or what have you. They're playing poorly. This roster that seemed primed to take a major step forward is exactly where it should be right now based on their level of play. Again, I would have definitely dropped the coaches first. I'm still baffled that didn't happen in fact. It seems entirely logical to assume that with a different system, maybe this chronically underperforming roster could finally take the step forward so many thought they would. Was Hexy unwilling to make such a blatantly obvious change? That would explain at least in part why he was shown the door. We'll probably never know of course. I really liked Hexy's methods. We have the best prospect pool we've ever had (on paper anyway). We have a bunch of money to work with to retain our upcoming youngsters. Hexy made some questionable signings in Voracek and now JVR, but I would consider both of them understandable signings at the time. He didn't find us a 3C in the offseason, but we have so many "almost there" players who could take that spot, I can understand this decision as well. Did he do everything right? No, but it was definitely a refreshing tenure when compared to the pure chaos of the homercoaster. I'm going to be very sad to see many of Hexy's best decisions now go to waste in the name of sneaking into the playoffs and making more money. I dunno. Part of me can't stand his loyalty to the coaching staff, but he made so many other great decisions. It's a messy situation for sure.
  13. My worries about getting any GM are compounded by the words coming out of Homer's mouth. It seems clear to me he wants a two keys things from his next GM: 1) He wants to have more of a say in hockey decisions. While others may vary in their assessment of Homer's tenure in hindsight, I subscribe quite firmly to the homercoaster version of his tenure. I would much prefer he have less than zero to do with any hockey related decisions. That said, this new GM likely will not have that option. It sounds like Homer will insist on being involved, which is something I find extremely troubling. 2) While I don't think any sane GM will trade away a bunch of young developing guns for over the hill veterans, I do think whoever the next GM is will essentially have a gun to his head with regards to making the team better in the short term. What does that mean exactly? Well, I think it means the Homers and Scotts of the world will insist the new GM make changes to address the team's current shortcomings, even if it means overpayment. This combination of things spells almost inevitable disaster to me. More importantly, both elements above are likely to be a problem regardless of who is next to sit in the GM chair. It doesn't matter if it's Fletcher or Nonis or whoever. Homer will set these two things as non-negotiable expectations right from the onset.
  14. I think you meant Simmer, Sanheim, and our 2nd round picks for the next five years.

About HF.net

 We are an enthusiastic community of HockeyFans who enjoy discussing the NHL and more in our Forums.  Our members may also write their own blogs, converse in chat, post pics in our gallery, join our fantasy hockey leagues and more.  If you are looking for a friendly community to discuss hockey then register today and begin your conversation in our NET.



Contact Us


Recent Topics

Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
Supporting Members help keep HockeyForums Advertisement Free